Advisers Cautioned Officials That Outlawing Palestine Action Could Boost Its Support
Official papers show that policymakers enacted a proscription on the activist network even after receiving advice that such steps could “inadvertently enhance” the group’s profile, as shown in recently uncovered official documents.
Background
The briefing paper was drafted three months ahead of the formal banning of the organization, which came into being to engage in activism aimed at curb UK weapons exports to Israel.
This was prepared in March by staff at the department of home affairs and the housing and communities department, aided by counter-terrorism specialists.
Opinion Polling
Beneath the subheading “In what way might the outlawing of the network be regarded by citizens”, a part of the briefing cautioned that a proscription could become a divisive matter.
Officials portrayed Palestine Action as a “modest single issue organization with less mainstream media exposure” compared to comparable protest organizations like environmental activists. Yet it highlighted that the organisation’s activities, and arrests of its members, had attracted press coverage.
Experts stated that research showed “growing frustration with Israel’s defense methods and actions in Gaza”.
Leading up to its main point, the document referenced a survey showing that a majority of British citizens felt Israel had overstepped in the war in Gaza and that a similar number favored a ban on military sales.
“These represent stances based on which Palestine Action group builds its profile, organising explicitly to oppose the Israeli arms industry in Britain,” officials wrote.
“Should that the group is outlawed, their profile may inadvertently be enhanced, finding support among like-thinking individuals who oppose the British footprint in the Israel’s weapons trade.”
Other Risks
The advisers said that the general populace opposed appeals from the certain outlets for harsh steps, like a outlawing.
Other sections of the report mentioned research indicating the public had a “limited knowledge” concerning the network.
Officials wrote that “a large portion of the British public are probably presently uninformed of the network and would remain so if there is proscription or, if informed, would stay mostly indifferent”.
The ban under terrorism laws has resulted in rallies where many individuals have been detained for holding up signs in public stating “I am against atrocities, I support the network”.
The document, which was a social effects evaluation, stated that a outlawing under security legislation could heighten religious tensions and be seen as government bias in favour of Israel.
The briefing cautioned officials and high-level staff that outlawing could become “a catalyst for significant dispute and criticism”.
Recent Events
One leader of the network, said that the document’s warnings had materialized: “Understanding of the matters and backing of the organization have increased dramatically. This proscription has backfired.”
The interior minister at the time, Yvette Cooper, declared the ban in June, right after the network’s members supposedly vandalized property at a military base in the county. Authorities asserted the damage was significant.
The timing of the briefing indicates the outlawing was in development ahead of it was revealed.
Officials were advised that a ban might be regarded as an assault on personal freedoms, with the officials stating that certain people in the cabinet as well as the general citizenry may see the decision as “an expansion of terrorism powers into the area of free expression and protest.”
Government Statements
A departmental official stated: “Palestine Action has carried out an growing wave entailing property destruction to Britain’s key installations, coercion, and claimed attacks. These actions puts the protection of the citizens at peril.
“Judgments on proscription are carefully considered. These are guided by a comprehensive fact-driven procedure, with assistance from a broad spectrum of experts from multiple agencies, the police and the intelligence agencies.”
A counter-terrorism official stated: “Decisions relating to banning are a prerogative for the administration.
“As the public would expect, national security forces, alongside a range of further organizations, routinely supply information to the Home Office to support their efforts.”
This briefing also showed that the central government had been financing periodic studies of community tensions connected to the Middle East conflict.
